4 Strong Reasons Fubara Is Legally Barred From Taking His Suspension Case To the Supreme Court
- A 2006 Supreme Court ruling prevents Fubara from legally challenging his suspension at the Supreme Court, as suspended governors lack the standing to sue on behalf of their states
- While Fubara cannot file a case in his personal capacity, PDP governors are challenging the suspension at the Supreme Court
- His only legal alternative is the Federal High Court, but experts warn that delays and objections could make a resolution unlikely before his six-month suspension ends
A 2006 Supreme Court ruling effectively prevents Siminalayi Fubara, the suspended governor of Rivers State, from approaching the court to challenge his suspension.
Legal experts argue that while he may seek redress at the Federal High Court, a quick resolution is unlikely.
4 Strong Reasons Fubara Is Legally Barred From Taking His Suspension Case To the Supreme CourtSource: Twitter
On March 19, President Bola Tinubu announced the six-month suspension of Fubara, his deputy, Ngozi Odu, and all members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
He also appointed retired Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas as the state’s administrator.
While Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers the president to declare a state of emergency, legal analysts argue that suspending a sitting governor, deputy governor, and lawmakers exceeds presidential authority.
Here are four key reasons why Fubara cannot take his case to the Supreme Court:
1. Lack of Locus Standi
A Supreme Court precedent from 2006, involving the Plateau State government, established that suspended governors lack the legal standing to challenge such actions in the name of their states.
In 2004, then-President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State, suspending Governor Joshua Dariye and the state legislature.
When the Plateau State government challenged this at the Supreme Court (SC. 113/2004), the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the National Assembly argued that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to sue.
Retired General Chris Alli, who was appointed as Plateau’s administrator, also opposed the lawsuit, stating:
In its ruling, the Supreme Court, led by then-Chief Justice Muhammadu Uwais, struck out the case on jurisdictional grounds. Justice Idris Kutigi ruled:
“The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs did not authorise this suit, and no instruction was given for filing same at the time it was filed. The suit having been filed without authorisation deserves one thing only—to be struck out.”
Since Fubara has been suspended and an administrator appointed in Rivers State, he similarly lacks the legal standing to sue on behalf of the state.
2. Inability to sue in personal capacity
The Supreme Court ruling in Plateau State v. Attorney-General of the Federation clarified that under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the court only has original jurisdiction over disputes between the federal government and a state—not cases filed by individuals in their personal capacity.
As a result, Fubara cannot personally file a case at the Supreme Court to challenge his suspension.
The court had previously struck out similar reliefs sought by Plateau State officials, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over their personal grievances.
3. PDP Governors, Not Fubara, Are Challenging the Suspension
Governors elected under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have resolved to approach the Supreme Court to challenge the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State.
However, Fubara himself is notably absent from the list of plaintiffs.
Legal analysts suggest this may be a strategic decision, given the Supreme Court’s precedent barring suspended governors from pursuing such cases.
4. Federal High Court Is an Alternative, But Resolution May Be Slow
4 Strong Reasons Fubara Is Legally Barred From Taking His Suspension Case To the Supreme CourtSource: Facebook
Since the Supreme Court is not an option, Fubara’s only potential legal avenue would be the Federal High Court. This court has jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation and cases involving the federal government under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
Fubara could argue that his suspension violates his fundamental rights or exceeds presidential powers. However, legal experts caution that:
The federal government would likely raise objections, causing delays.
The case could take years to resolve, by which time his six-month suspension would have ended.
Court asked to sack Rivers’ sole administrator Ibas
Previously, TheTalk.NG reported that the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has been asked to sack the Sole Administrator of Rivers state, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas (rtd).
An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Johnmary Jideobi, filed the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/572/2025 on Tuesday, March 25, 2025.
Source: TheTalk.NG
